the judicial branch assignment

The Judicial Branch

Students will learn about the federal and state courts and what they do. They will explore the courts’ role in fairly settling disputes and administering justice, and the unique role of the U.S. Supreme Court in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

View our  Constitution Explained  video series  for short-form videos to share with students about the judicial and other branches of government.

Explore resources in this unit

• 6-8 | Middle
• 9-12 | High

Judicial Branch in a Flash!

Need to teach the judicial branch in a hurry? In this lesson, students learn the basics of our judicial system, including the functions of the trial court, the Court of Appeals,…

The Courts in a Nutshell

In this WebQuest, students look at all levels of both the state and federal court systems. They learn about jurisdiction, look up the courts in their own state, find out what…

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court’s decision that affirmed the Court’s power of judicial review. Students learn how Congress tried to add to the Supreme…

Trial and Appeal (Infographic)

Most cases start and end in trial court, but what if there's an error? Show students how a case works its way up in this printable poster for your classroom! iCivics en español! A…

In the Courts

Our Judicial Branch has a big job! Do you think you have what it takes to be a judge and get the job done? 

Branches of Power

Learn to control all three branches of the U.S. government!

Judges: Playing Fair

This mini-lesson takes a look at the role of fair and impartial courts in American life. Students learn about how judges are selected and held accountable. It also looks at how…

Supreme Interpreters

What does it mean to interpret the Constitution? Why is interpretation necessary? Who gets to do it? In this WebQuest, students explore the answers to these questions and more.…

Argument Wars Extension Pack

Transform your students’ gameplay into meaningful and memorable learning. You can now download and assign extension pack materials directly from the Argument Wars game page. The…

Appellate Courts: Let's Take It Up

Students learn the purpose of appellate-level courts and how those courts operate differently from the trial courts most people are familiar with from watching television. By…

Court Quest Extension Pack

Transform your students’ gameplay into meaningful and memorable learning. You can now download and assign extension pack materials directly from the Court Quest game page. The…

Supreme Court Nominations

This lesson plan teaches the fundamentals of Supreme Court Justice nominations and helps students understand the politics behind the nominations. It challenges students to cut…

Double Take: The Dual Court System

Does your state court system feel oddly similar to our federal one? Chances are it does, but there may still be some differences. In this lesson, students learn how our…

Stipulating Speech

What does the phrase “freedom of speech” really mean? This lesson outlines the types of speech the First Amendment does and does not protect. Students also examine the Supreme…

Use the Scope & Sequence to help you plan your iCivics classroom experience!

Whether you enjoy finding opportunities within a well-structured sequence of resources or prefer looking around for pieces and bits that can be jigsawed together, our Scope & Sequence documents are a perfect reference point for planning. Scope & Sequence documents are available for elementary, middle, and high school classrooms and list all of our resources in one place.

• Teacher Opportunities
• AP U.S. Government Key Terms
• Bureaucracy & Regulation
• Campaigns & Elections
• Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
• Comparative Government
• Constitutional Foundation
• Criminal Law & Justice
• Economics & Financial Literacy
• English & Literature
• Environmental Policy & Land Use
• Executive Branch
• Federalism and State Issues
• Foreign Policy
• Gun Rights & Firearm Legislation
• Immigration
• Interest Groups & Lobbying
• Judicial Branch
• Legislative Branch
• Political Parties
• Science & Technology
• Social Services
• State History
• Supreme Court Cases
• U.S. History
• World History

Log-in to bookmark & organize content - it's free!

• Bell Ringers
• Lesson Plans
• Featured Resources

Lesson Plan: Federal Court Structure

Structure of the Federal Court System

L. Ralph Mecham, Director of the U.S. District Court System, explains the three levels of the Federal Court System.

Description

The Judicial Branch’s powers are outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Article III creates the U.S. Supreme Court and gives Congress the ability to create “inferior” courts, which make up our federal court system. Students will begin the lesson by learning about the three levels of the Federal Court System. Students will continue in the lesson to gain an understanding of how the three levels of federal court work together through following the landmark Supreme Court case Katz v. U.S., through the court system.

Vocabulary Introduction:

Before beginning the lesson, have students test their understanding of the following vocabulary words. You may print this out or you may assign it to each student individually using Google Classroom or Schoology or another classroom platform. This activity is divided into two pages.

Activity: Vocabulary Drag and Drop Activity (Google Slides)

• Jurisdiction
• Original Jurisdiction
• Appellate Jurisdiction
• Wiretapping

Federal laws

INTRODUCTION:

As a class, view the video clip linked below and have the students work in groups to complete the graphic organizer

Video Clip: Structure of the Federal Court System (3:41)

Graphic Organizer: Federal Court System (Google Doc)

The link for the video is in the graphic organizer so students may listen as many times as they need to hear all the information needed to complete the organizer. You could also assign the Graphic Organizer to students individually using Google Classroom or Schoology or another platform. Remember to make a copy before assigning to students.

At the bottom of the organizer students will go to the Federal Court Finder on the uscourts.gov website to find the Circuit and District courts that represent their location.

Here is a KEY for the Graphic Organizer

EXPLORATION:

Assign students to complete the Katz v. United States Assignment on the handout linked below. Remember to make a copy of the document before assigning to each student. You will be able to post this assignment in Google Classroom, Schoology, or other platforms. Students will independently work through the presentation, viewing video clips and answering questions within the presentation.

Assignment: Katz v. United States (Google Slides)

Answer Key for Katz v United States Assignment

VIDEO CLIPS:

Video Clip: Who was Charles Katz (:48)

Video Clip: The Beginning of Katz v U.S. (1:12)

Video Clip: Laws Broken in Katz v U.S. ( :57)

Video Clip: Tracing Katz v U.S. Through the Court System (1:29)

Video Clip: Katz v U.S. Timeline (:40)

Video Clip: Reasons for Circuit Court Decision, Katz v U.S. (:28)

Video Clip: Reason Supreme Court will Agree to Hear a Case (1:14)

Video Clip: Decision in Katz v. U.S. (1:38)

• Video Clip: Reaction to Decision in Katz v U.S. (:26)

Have students watch the video clip below and give students 5 minutes to write down their thoughts on the extent to how the decision in this case should apply to current methods of communication and technologies. This is a Quick Write. Students do not need to write in complete sentences and it does not need to be collected. As a whole class, students share their ideas and thoughts. You could also turn the quick write into an essay, for students to complete as an assessment.

Video Clip: Future of Privacy Rights (2:57)

Additional Resources

• Bell Ringer: How Does the Supreme Court Decide Which Cases to Hear
• Bell Ringer: The Federal Court System
• Federal Laws

The Judicial Branch

Discover the role of the judicial branch of the federal government with the help of this graphic organizer! This worksheet guides students as they research and analyze the roles and structure of the judicial branch of government, how a federal judge is appointed and their term limits, the power and breadth of the Supreme Court, the checks it has on other branches of government, and more. Designed to accommodate a middle school U.S. history and civics curriculum, this one-page graphic organizer makes a great learning tool or study guide as students learn about the three branches of government. For a look at the other branches of government, check out The Executive Branch and The Legislative Branch !

View aligned standards

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

The Judicial Branch

Where the executive and legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. The Constitution also grants Congress the power to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and to that end Congress has established the United States district courts, which try most federal cases, and 13 United States courts of appeals, which review appealed district court cases.

Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns.

Generally, Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In some cases, however — such as in the example of a dispute between two or more U.S. states — the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, an authority that cannot be stripped by Congress.

The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. This means that the courts do not issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws or the legality of actions if the ruling would have no practical effect. Cases brought before the judiciary typically proceed from district court to appellate court and may even end at the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court hears comparatively few cases each year.

Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court’s interpretation to the facts of a particular case.

The Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land and the only part of the federal judiciary specifically required by the Constitution.

The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice. All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold their offices under life tenure. Since Justices do not have to run or campaign for re-election, they are thought to be insulated from political pressure when deciding cases. Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress.

The Court’s caseload is almost entirely appellate in nature, and the Court’s decisions cannot be appealed to any authority, as it is the final judicial arbiter in the United States on matters of federal law. However, the Court may consider appeals from the highest state courts or from federal appellate courts. The Court also has original jurisdiction over limited types of cases, including those involving ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases between states.

Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied. Lower courts are obligated to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court when rendering decisions.

In almost all instances, the Supreme Court does not hear appeals as a matter of right; instead, parties must petition the Court for a writ of certiorari. It is the Court’s custom and practice to “grant cert” if four of the nine Justices decide that they should hear the case. Of the approximately 7,500 requests for certiorari filed each year, the Court usually grants cert to fewer than 150. These are typically cases that the Court considers sufficiently important to require their review; a common example is the occasion when two or more of the federal courts of appeals have ruled differently on the same question of federal law.

If the Court grants certiorari, Justices accept legal briefs from the parties to the case, as well as from amicus curiae, or “friends of the court.” These can include industry trade groups, academics, or even the U.S. government itself. Before issuing a ruling, the Supreme Court usually hears oral arguments, where the various parties to the suit present their arguments and the Justices ask them questions. If the case involves the federal government, the Solicitor General of the United States presents arguments on behalf of the United States. The Justices then hold private conferences, make their decision, and (often after a period of several months) issue the Court’s opinion, along with any dissenting arguments that may have been written.

The Judicial Process

Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one’s peers.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution provide additional protections for those accused of a crime. These include:

• A guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law
• Protection against being tried for the same crime twice (“double jeopardy”)
• The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury
• The right to cross-examine witnesses, and to call witnesses to support their case
• The right to legal representation
• The right to avoid self-incrimination
• Protection from excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments

Criminal proceedings can be conducted under either state or federal law, depending on the nature and extent of the crime. A criminal legal procedure typically begins with an arrest by a law enforcement officer. If a grand jury chooses to deliver an indictment, the accused will appear before a judge and be formally charged with a crime, at which time he or she may enter a plea.

The defendant is given time to review all the evidence in the case and to build a legal argument. Then, the case is brought to trial and decided by a jury. If the defendant is determined to be not guilty of the crime, the charges are dismissed. Otherwise, the judge determines the sentence, which can include prison time, a fine, or even execution.

Civil cases are similar to criminal ones, but instead of arbitrating between the state and a person or organization, they deal with disputes between individuals or organizations. In civil cases, if a party believes that it has been wronged, it can file suit in civil court to attempt to have that wrong remedied through an order to cease and desist, alter behavior, or award monetary damages. After the suit is filed and evidence is gathered and presented by both sides, a trial proceeds as in a criminal case. If the parties involved waive their right to a jury trial, the case can be decided by a judge; otherwise, the case is decided and damages awarded by a jury.

After a criminal or civil case is tried, it may be appealed to a higher court — a federal court of appeals or state appellate court. A litigant who files an appeal, known as an “appellant,” must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the outcome of the case. An appellate court makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency — it does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. It may also review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a trial outcome on factual grounds if the findings were “clearly erroneous.” If a defendant is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding, he or she cannot be retried on the same set of facts.

Federal appeals are decided by panels of three judges. The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in a written document called a “brief.” In the brief, the appellant tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error, and that the lower decision should be reversed. On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the “appellee” or “respondent,” tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any errors made by the trial court are not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.

The court of appeals usually has the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc — that is, by a larger group of judges of the court of appeals for the circuit.

A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a “writ of certiorari,” which is a document asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, is not obligated to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves a new and important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. (There are also special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal.) When the Supreme Court hears a case, the parties are required to file written briefs and the Court may hear oral argument.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Judicial Branch

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 21, 2018 | Original: November 17, 2017

The judicial branch of the U.S. government is the system of federal courts and judges that interprets laws made by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch. At the top of the judicial branch are the nine justices of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States.

What Does the Judicial Branch Do?

From the beginning, it seemed that the judicial branch was destined to take somewhat of a backseat to the other two branches of government.

The Articles of Confederation , the forerunner of the U.S. Constitution that set up the first national government after the Revolutionary War, failed even to mention judicial power or a federal court system.

In Philadelphia in 1787, the members of the Constitutional Convention drafted Article III of the Constitution , which stated that: “[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

The framers of the Constitution didn’t elaborate the Supreme Court’s powers in that document, or specify how the judicial branch should be organized—they left all that up to Congress.

Judiciary Act of 1789

With the first bill introduced in the U.S. Senate—which became the Judiciary Act of 1789—the judicial branch began to take shape. The act set up the federal court system and set guidelines for the operation of the U.S. Supreme Court , which at the time had one chief justice and five associate justices.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 also established a federal district court in each state, and in both Kentucky and Maine (which were then parts of other states). In between these two tiers of the judiciary were the U.S. circuit courts, which would serve as the principal trial courts in the federal system.

In its earliest years, the Court held nowhere near the stature it would eventually assume. When the U.S. capital moved to Washington in 1800, the city’s planners failed even to provide the court with its own building, and it met in a room in the basement of the Capitol.

Judicial Review

During the long tenure of the fourth chief justice, John Marshall (appointed in 1801), the Supreme Court assumed what is now considered its most important power and duty, as well as a key part of the system of checks and balances essential to the functioning of the nation’s government.

Judicial review—the process of deciding whether a law is constitutional or not, and declaring the law null and void if it is found to be in conflict with the Constitution—is not mentioned in the Constitution, but was effectively created by the Court itself in the important 1803 case Marbury v. Madison .

In the 1810 case Fletcher v. Peck , the Supreme Court effectively expanded its right of judicial review by striking down a state law as unconstitutional for the first time.

Judicial review established the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality in the United States, including federal or state laws, executive orders and lower court rulings.

In another example of the checks and balances system, the U.S. Congress can effectively check judicial review by passing amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Selection of Federal Judges

The U.S. president nominates all federal judges—including Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges and district court judges—and the U.S. Senate confirms them.

Many federal judges are appointed for life, which serves to ensure their independence and immunity from political pressure. Their removal is possible only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.

Since 1869, the official number of Supreme Court justices has been set at nine. Thirteen appellate courts, or U.S. Courts of Appeals, sit below the Supreme Court.

Below that, 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has its own court of appeals. The 13th court, known as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and located in Washington, D.C. , hears appeals in patent law cases, and other specialized appeals.

Supreme Court Cases

Over the years, the Supreme Court has issued controversial verdicts in a number of milestone cases, including:

1819: McCulloch v. Maryland – By ruling that Congress had implied powers under the “necessary and proper” clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Court effectively asserted national supremacy over state authority.

1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford – The Court ruled that a slave was not a citizen, and that Congress could not outlaw slavery in U.S. territories, a debate that would eventually lead to the U.S. Civil War .

1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson – The Court ruled that racial segregation in public places was legal, establishing the “separate but equal” doctrine that would sanction the South’s “Jim Crow” laws for the better part of a century.

1954 – Brown v. Board of Education – The Court overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine by ruling that racial segregation in public schools violated the 14th Amendment .

1966 – Miranda v. Arizona – The Court ruled that police must inform criminal suspects of their rights before questioning them.

1973 – Roe v. Wade – By ruling as unconstitutional a state law banning abortion except to save the life of the mother, the Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within her right to privacy (as recognized in an earlier case, Griswold v. Connecticut ) protected by the 14th Amendment.

2000 – Bush v. Gore – The Court’s ruling—that the manual recount of votes ordered by the state of Florida in the hotly contested 2000 U.S. presidential election was unconstitutional—resulted in Texas Governor George W. Bush winning the election over Vice President Al Gore .

2010 – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – The Court ruled that the government cannot restrict spending by corporations in political campaigns, because it would be limiting the corporations’ rights of free speech under the First Amendment .

History and Traditions, Supreme Court of the United States . The Judicial Branch, WhiteHouse.gov . Federal Judicial History, Federal Judicial Center . Court Role and Structure, United States Courts .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

11.1 What Is the Judiciary?

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Distinguish between rule of law and rule by law.
• Identify the responsibilities of a judicial system.
• Compare and contrast the different methods states and countries use to select judicial officers.
• Discuss major criticisms of each method of judicial selection.

In Chapter 4: Civil Liberties , you learned that law is a body of rules of conduct, with binding legal force and effect, that is prescribed, recognized, and enforced by a controlling authority. In the world today, that authority is usually the government of a particular area. However, multiple levels of government may have authority in a given place. The power of a governmental body to exercise the highest authority in an area is called sovereignty . If a government has sovereignty over a particular region, that government can create and impose rules on people within the region.

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties also introduced the rule of law , the principle that the government is beholden to its laws, not to any individual or group. Throughout history, many individuals and small groups have become dictators with the sole power to create laws and punish people as they wished, thus employing rule by law . There are still some dictators in the world today, as in North Korea . Dictatorships are oppressive, and dictatorial regimes are prone to corruption. By following the rule of law, robust democracies try to avoid these injustices.

Court Shorts: Rule of Law

In this brief video, United States judges who preside over different types and levels of courts discuss the meaning of the rule of law and the role it plays in our everyday lives.

Recall the four principles of the rule of law:

• Accountability: The government and private actors are accountable under the law. No one is above the law.
• Just laws: The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and applied evenly, and they protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
• Open government: The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient.
• Accessible and impartial dispute resolution: Justice is delivered in a timely manner by competent, ethical, independent, and neutral decision-makers who have adequate resources and reflect the communities they serve.

These principles demonstrate that the government and the people are in a social contract , a voluntary agreement whereby the people consent to abide by specific rules while living in the territory and the government consents to limit itself to acting in accordance with certain standards. This creates a symbiotic relationship between the government and the people, rather than a system based on fear and oppression.

In each democratic country, a constitution sets up the framework for government operations that adhere to these four principles. The constitution formalizes how the country’s government will wield authority and implement powers under that authority. The constitution may be written or unwritten, in one document or several, and titled constitution or basic laws . Whatever its form or title, a constitution establishes the basic government structure for the government’s sovereign territory. It usually creates branches with differing powers that have the ability to check each other in the exercise of those powers. One of the branches that carries out the rule of law in a country is the judicial branch.

The judicial system or judicial branch is the court system that interprets, defends, and applies the law in the government’s name. It is the mechanism for peacefully resolving disputes between individuals. Sometimes people refer to this branch of government as the judiciary, but that can be confusing because the judiciary also refers to the people who work in the judicial branch. Therefore, this chapter will consistently refer to the branch of government as the judicial branch and the people who work in that branch as the judiciary.

The judicial branch serves different purposes in different political systems. For example, in a political system that prioritizes civil rights and liberties, the judiciary working within the judicial branch checks government action and protects individual rights and liberties. In a system in which there is a separation of powers between the branches of government, the judiciary has judicial independence . In these systems, often the courts can perform a judicial review to check government actions. In judicial review , a judge interprets and implements the constitution to ensure that the other branches of government do not violate what it says. Judicial review will be explored later in this chapter.

In contrast, some political systems rely on adherence to strict religious or political standards, creating authoritarian law regimes. In these systems, the judicial branch and the judiciary help impose the government’s approved viewpoint on the citizens through rule by law . In these systems, the judiciary has little independence. The judicial system acts as a source of government control over individual citizens. 3 Tom Ginsburg and Tamir Moustafa identify five primary functions of courts in these authoritarian rule-by-law regimes:

• To establish social control and sideline political opponents
• To bolster a regime’s claim to legal legitimacy
• To strengthen administrative compliance within the state’s own bureaucratic machinery and solve coordination problems among competing factions within the regime
• To facilitate trade and investment
• To implement controversial policies so as to allow political distance from core elements of the regime 4

Justice Handed Over to Dictatorship from the Film Judgment at Nuremberg

The 1961 film Judgment at Nuremberg portrays the military tribunal at which four German judges who served while the Nazis were in power face charges of crimes against humanity. In this clip, the former minister of justice explains changes in the judiciary under the dictatorship of the Third Reich.

In rule-by-law authoritarian regimes, the government suppresses opposition and imposes a specific viewpoint on any part of the government or the population to the extent that human rights violations occur. 5 Iran and North Korea are examples of rule-by-law authoritarian regimes. The dictatorial leader of North Korea is selected to a lifetime appointment on a state-approved ballot where only one candidate is listed. This leader has control over the judiciary, and all must adhere to the leader’s will or face retribution. 6

Other countries have come to have an authoritarian-populist judiciary . This means that, through changes instituted by one ruling person or political party, they have transitioned from a rule-of-law system to a rule-by-law authoritarian subsystem. In Turkey, longtime president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his ruling party replaced the governmental system in 2017 and have enacted laws to keep themselves in power. Changes in 2007, 2010, and 2017 gave Erdoğan and his ruling party the ability to appoint and dismiss prosecutors and judges, thus calling into question the independence of the judiciary. 7 A European Commission report in 2020 found that the continued centralization of power in the president was blurring the lines of separation of powers in the branches of government such that few checks and balances remain: “Under these conditions, the serious backsliding of the respect for democratic standards, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms continued.” 8 The report identified significant issues with the Turkish judicial system and its slide into rule by law, not the rule of law:

“Turkey’s judicial system is at an early stage of preparation and serious backsliding continued during the reporting period. Concerns remained, in particular over the systemic lack of independence of the judiciary. The president announced the Judicial Reform Strategy for 2019–2023 in May 2019. However, it falls short of addressing key shortcomings regarding the independence of the judiciary. No measures were announced to remedy the concerns identified by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and in the European Commission’s annual country reports. There are concerns that dismissals in the absence of respect for due procedures caused self-censorship and intimidation within the judiciary. No measures were taken to change the structure of, and process for, the selection of members of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to strengthen its independence. Concerns regarding the lack of objective, merit-based, uniform and pre-established criteria for recruiting and promoting judges and prosecutors persisted. No changes were made to the institution of criminal judges of peace so that concerns regarding their jurisdiction and practice remained.” 9

One can thus see the difference between the rule of law and rule by law. Each judicial system can be assessed on the basis of how well it meets the rule-of-law criteria for protecting the rights of the people from government overreach, manipulation, and the rise of dictatorships.

How the Judicial Branch Differs from the Other Branches of Government

Judicial branches differ from the executive and legislative branches because, unlike in those branches, the judicial system restricts how the courts may act and how the people may express their opinions to the courts. A good description of this restriction appears in Federalist no. 78, wherein Alexander Hamilton wrote about the judicial branch as it is described in the US Constitution:

“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but also holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but also prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” 10

In rule-of-law systems, the judicial branch depends on the other branches and the population’s respect for the rule of law to carry out its decisions. An example helps illustrate the differences between the branches and their powers. In the United States, a president alarmed at the number of gun shootings occurring in the country can create a commission to review the problem and make recommendations to Congress to enact new laws. The president (the executive) can implement some of these recommendations by executive order , a particular type of binding law that only the chief executive can create. The people can express their views on the subject to the president at any time. Congress (the legislature) may also be alarmed about the number of gun killings. They can open an investigation and create a statute to limit some access to guns. Again, the people can express their views on this subject to Congress at any time. In both examples, government officials decide what they want to investigate and what actions they want to take, and the people can freely voice their opinions on the subject. Courts, however, cannot take action on their own in the ways the executive and legislative branches can, and people cannot express their opinion in court unless they meet particular criteria. A court can only take action if it has jurisdiction over a specific case. Jurisdiction is the written authority, stated in a constitution or a statute, that authorizes a court to hear a case. Jurisdiction includes both the geographical region and the topics of the court’s authority.

What Can I Do?

Critical thinking and the courts.

Every functioning government must have a functioning judicial system. As you study the different forms of judicial systems, how they operate, and elements such as the standards of evidence across different judicial systems, as well as different types of law, you are sharpening your critical thinking skills. Being able to understand and explain why someone is found innocent of a particular crime, for example, requires the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize various pieces of information coming from the defense attorney, the prosecutor, the facts of the case, and the components of the law in question. This is the core of critical thinking, and it is a fundamental skill that is utilized in virtually any career. Critical thinking skills are highly valued, and they take work and practice to develop. Studying topics such as courts and judiciary systems is a good way not only to prepare for a career within the legal world—as an attorney, for example—but also to hone general critical thinking skills that are invaluable regardless of what direction your professional path in life takes.

Selecting Judicial Officers

There are as many ways to select judicial officers as there are countries in the world. The particulars of the selection process vary widely by country. The selection process can also differ for different levels or types of courts within a country. All of the selection processes can be sorted into four broad categories:

• Appointment for life
• Appointment for a specified number of years
• Hybrid, or a combination of these methods (e.g., appointment followed by retention election)

Lifetime Appointments

The US Constitution establishes a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and authorizes Congress to create other Article III courts . 11 The judges for these courts are nominated by the president and confirmed by the US Senate. These Article III judges serve for life, as long as they remain on “good behavior.” There is no mandatory retirement age. These courts have the power of judicial review and, once appointed, are independent of the other branches of government.

Congress can change any court’s jurisdiction except SCOTUS’s original jurisdiction . Still, neither Congress nor the president can fire a judge nor stop the judge’s salary if they disagree with a decision the judge makes. Thus, the judiciary in the United States has some measure of independence, but judges are often subject to political pressure during the appointment process.

Article III courts include the United States Supreme Court, US circuit courts of appeals , and US district courts . There is only one SCOTUS, but there are 13 circuit courts of appeals and about 100 district courts. All have multiple judges, so the power to appoint judges is a substantial one. Moreover, because these judges are appointed for life, a president can influence the interpretation of the law and the Constitution well beyond that president’s term of office. As noted by legal scholar Alexander Bickel , “You shoot an arrow into a far distant future when you appoint a [US federal] justice, and not the man himself can tell you what he will think about some of the problems that he will face.” 12

THE CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

Women on high courts around the world.

While gender representation on high court benches across the globe skews toward men, studies suggest that the rate of women on judiciaries in countries around the world rose by about 29 percent between 2011 and 2019. Research suggests that a high court judge’s gender may be a better predictor of how they will decide a case than their political leanings and that the gender composition of a court can influence how individual judges view a case. 13

Ethiopia’s First Female Supreme Court Chief Justice: Meaza Ashenafi

In this clip, Meaza Ashenafi, the first ever female Chief Justice on Ethiopia's Supreme Court, talks about how she worked to define sexual harassment and violence against women in the Amharic language, the official language of Ethiopia. She goes on to discuss the importance of the impartiality of the courts and the role courts play in serving their communities.

The lifetime appointment of judges outside the United States is rare. Even in countries that say they appoint certain judges to lifetime terms, these judges are held to a mandatory retirement age. 14 For example, in the United Kingdom, Supreme Court justices are not subject to term limits , but they must retire by age 70. 15 Additionally, in the United Kingdom, there are minimum requirements for nomination, and a nominating commission reviews applicants. Finally, this type of appointment applies only to a particular court, not to all courts in a broad category, as in the United States.

In Belgium, the monarch appoints constitutional court judges from a list of candidates submitted by Parliament. 16 As in the UK, these judges are appointed for life with mandatory retirement at age 70. The monarch selects judges for the supreme court, the Court of Cassation, from candidates submitted by the High Council of Justice, an independent 44-member body consisting of both judicial and nonjudicial members. Like constitutional court judges, Court of Cassation judges are appointed for life with a mandatory retirement age of 70. 17

Recent discussions in the United States have debated instating a mandatory retirement age or setting a term limit for Article III judges. 18

Appointment for a Term of Years

There is a second type of US federal judge: those appointed for a term of years. Congress, in creating these courts, specifies the qualifications of the judge and the term of service. 19 Potential judges apply for the office as one would apply for any other job. A hiring committee selects the judge. Several US states also appoint some of their judges for a term of years. The process for an appointment varies by state. 20

Many countries appoint some of their judges for a term of years, though the processes by which they do so differ. 21 For example, in Albania, the president alone makes some nine-year appointments. 22 On the other hand, the Chinese legislature, the People’s National Congress, appoints the chief justice of their national supreme court for a limit of two consecutive five-year terms. 23 To be considered for most judicial appointments in France, an attorney must pass a series of entrance examinations. 24 They must then attend special classes and pass a series of difficult examinations to be eligible for an appointment as a judge. The Ministry of Justice oversees this process without any executive input.

Appointment by Election

A few US states use a rare process, election, to select some judges. In a 1988 speech, Hans Linde , a former justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, said “To the rest of the world, American adherence to judicial elections is as incomprehensible as our rejection of the metric system.” 25

When judges are directly elected, the judiciary is an agent of the government with limited independence. The voters use their votes to pass judgment on judicial decisions in the same way that they use their votes to weigh in on the actions of the executive and legislative branches. Thus, one of the criticisms of judicial elections is that they incentivize judges to make politically popular decisions that are not necessarily correct interpretations of the law.

Different US states employ different types of judicial elections. A candidate’s political party is listed on the ballot in partisan elections , while the candidate’s political affiliation is not listed in nonpartisan elections . Many states have moved away from direct elections and toward retention elections. In a retention election , a judge is appointed for a term of years, and at the end of that term, an election is held to determine if the judge should be retained for another term or replaced. 26

Texas is one of the few states that still holds partisan elections for almost all judgeships in the state. 27 As a result, candidates run for office just like all other elected officials. They align with a political party, receive the majority vote in the party’s primary election, and campaign showing their affiliation to the party. Most other states have moved away from this selection style because of issues with partisanship, such as the appearance of impropriety when someone makes a large campaign contribution before appearing before the court and the instability of a process that selects candidates based on political popularity rather than legal expertise. 28 Texas has been the object of scrutiny for allegations of favoritism to campaign donors and political party influence on judges. 29 As a result, there is pressure from a number of corners, including former and current judges, to change this system. 30 About 13 states still hold nonpartisan elections for some of their judgeships. These states assert that this enables people to have a say in the judiciary while removing political partisanship from the selection process. 31

Former Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court Wallace Jefferson on Electing Judges in Texas

In this clip, former Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court Wallace Jefferson weighs in on how he believes the state of Texas should select judges.

Switzerland also holds judicial elections in which the Federal Assembly, their legislative branch, elects judges to six-year terms. 32 A few other countries also hold some judicial elections.

Hybrid or Mixed Selection

Many countries have a hybrid system , with a mix of appointments for term and appointments for life depending on the type of court. 33 A couple of countries and a few US states have both appointments and elections. One common hybrid selection system used in several countries is an appointment with review after one term. In Japan, the chief justice of the Supreme Court is designated by the Cabinet and appointed by the monarch, while associate justices are appointed by the Cabinet and confirmed by the monarch. All justices are subject to a popular referendum at the first general election after their appointment and every 10 years thereafter. 34

Several US states use a hybrid system known as retention or the Missouri Plan . This system has gained popularity in the United States over the last 50 years. 35 In a retention system, the executive initially appoints a judge, with legislative approval, similar to the federal appointment process. The appointed person serves for a term of years. After this initial term, if a judge wants to remain in office, they must run in a retention election. There is no opposing candidate in a retention election; people vote on whether to keep or replace the judge. The judge runs on their record, and their party affiliation typically is not listed on the ballot. A retained judge remains in office for another term. In some states, there is a limit to the number of retention terms a judge may serve. If the judge is not retained, then the process starts again with new nominees and appointments. This style appeals to many Americans because it limits campaigning and political party influence over the judiciary while allowing the people some say over the judicial officers.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Mark Carl Rom, Masaki Hidaka, Rachel Bzostek Walker
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Political Science
• Publication date: May 18, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/11-1-what-is-the-judiciary

© Apr 26, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

What’s at stake in Mexico’s judicial system under sweeping overhaul pushed by the president

Mexico’s ruling party says judges in the current court system are corrupt, and wants to push through a extreme proposal to make the country’s entire judicial branch — some 7,000 judges — stand for election.

Federal court workers block the road in front of the Senate to protest the government’s proposed judicial reform in Mexico City, Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2024. (AP Photo/Felix Marquez)

• Copy Link copied

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico’s governing party says judges in the current court system are corrupt, and it wants to push through an extreme proposal to make the country’s entire judicial branch — some 7,000 judges — stand for election.

While some countries like Switzerland and the United States elect some judges indirectly or at the local level, outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador wants citizens to vote on every single judge, appeals court member and justice all the way up to the Supreme Court. The president has clashed repeatedly with judges throughout his six-year term, which ends Sept. 30.

In its present form, the overhaul has drawn criticism domestically and from abroad and leaves a lot of questions to be answered.

Here is a look at some of the biggest issues at stake.

How would the elections work?

People would only need a law degree, decent grades, five years of undefined “judicial area experience” and a letter of recommendation from anyone to run for some judgeships. The candidates’ applications would be winnowed down by a committee of experts, and the names of the finalists would then be drawn from a hat, in some cases. Supreme Court justices would require 10 years’ experience, but would also be elected.

But many details remain unclear, including, for example, how many names would be on the ballots. Hundreds, or potentially thousands, of relatively unknown people could be running for these positions.

Would voters research and read the resumes of all these people, or would political parties simply hand out a list of their preferred candidates to supporters?

It is also not clear who would pay for the candidates’ election campaigns.

While the proposal sets limits on campaigning and spending, people who are willing to finance a judgeship candidate may well be those who have a vested interest in court cases.

How does someone become a judge now?

Judges and court secretaries (something like assistant judges) currently work their way up to higher positions by periodic reviews and evaluation committees. There are clearly problems with cronyism and favoritism in the current model, and it isn’t very good at punishing corrupt judges. At the highest levels, some are nominated or selected by the legislative or executive branches.

What else would the overhaul do?

It would create so-called “faceless” judges to hear organized crime cases, to protect their identities and avoid reprisals, threats or pressure against them.

It would create a judicial disciplinary committee that could rule not just on judicial misconduct like bribes, mishandling evidence or improper delays, but also conduct investigations into judges for their legal reasoning.

It would reduce the Supreme Court from 11 justices to nine, and their terms to 12 years from the current 15.

How would it be implemented?

The overhaul has to be approved by the two chambers of Congress. The lower chamber, dominated by the governing party, has already voted in favor by a wide margin . The measure is now headed to the Senate, where it is expected to pass by a razor-thin margin. It must then win approval in 17 of the country’s 32 state legislatures, where the governing party also appears to have sufficient votes.

Once enacted, apart from the cost and time involved in organizing such massive elections, the current judges would all have to be fired and given severance pay. Fired judges could run as candidates. Many of the newly elected judges would be walking into specialized courtrooms and appeals courts that they have never seen or argued cases in before. The learning curve could be long.

Could the overhaul work?

The governing party says letting voters decide would make judges more responsive to the popular will and make it easier to punish bad ones.

But in Mexico, the main problem is not that corrupt judges dismiss too many cases, it’s that police and prosecutors are so ill-trained and overwhelmed that over 90% of crimes are never brought to court at all.

Has something like this been tried before?

In 2009, Bolivia implemented voting for some judgeships, but a lot of voters turned in blank ballots and the process has been frozen for the time being.

Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

All Offices and Divisions of the First Judicial District Court will be closed Friday, September 6, 2024 at 12:00pm for Administrative functions.

First Judicial District

Supreme court.

The Supreme Court consists of five Justices and is located in Santa Fe. This is the court of last resort and has superintending control over all inferior courts and attorneys licensed in the state.

This court has mandatory appellate jurisdiction over : criminal matters in which the sentence imposed is life in prison or the death penalty, appeals from the Public Regulation Commission, appeals from the granting of writs of habeas corpus, appeals in actions challenging nominations, and removal of public officials.

Discretionary jurisdiction : denials of petitions for writ of habeas corpus, petitions for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals, other extraordinary writ matters, and certified questions either from the Court of Appeals or federal courts.

Court of Appeals

Ten judges preside, sitting in panels of three. The Court of Appeals has offices in Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

This court has mandatory jurisdiction in : civil, non-capital criminal, juvenile cases; Discretionary jurisdiction in interlocutory decision cases and administrative agency appeals.

District Court

One-hundred-two judges preside. There are thirteen different districts. These are District Courts of general jurisdiction which hold jury trials.

This court will hear these types of cases : Tort, contract, real property rights, and estate. Exclusive domestic relations, mental health, appeals for administrative agencies and lower courts, miscellaneous civil jurisdiction; Misdemeanor. Exclusive criminal appeals jurisdiction; Exclusive juvenile jurisdiction.

Magistrate Court

Sixty-seven judges preside. There are 46 magistrate courts. These are courts of limited jurisdiction. Jury trials.

This court will hear these types of cases : Tort, contract, landlord/tenant rights ($0-10,000); Felony preliminary hearings; Misdemeanor, DWI/DUI and other traffic violations.

Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court

Nineteen judges preside. Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court is of limited jurisdiction. Jury trials.

This court will hear these types of cases : Tort, contract, landlord/tenant rights ($0-10,000); Felony first appearances; Misdemeanor, DWI/DUI, Domestic Violence and other traffic violations.

Municipal Court

Eighty-three judges preside. There are eighty-one municipal courts . These are courts of limited jurisdiction. No jury trials.

This court will hear these types of cases : Petty misdemeanors, DWI/DUI, traffic violations and other municipal ordinance violations.

Probate Court

Thirty-three judges. There are thirty-three counties. These are courts of limited jurisdiction. No jury trials.

This court will hear these types of cases : Informal probate; Estate (Hears uncontested cases. Contested cases go to district court).

First Judicial District / The following legal public holidays will be observed by the New Mexico Judicial Branch of Government in 2024.

The following legal public holidays will be observed by the New Mexico Judicial Branch of Government in 2024.

2024 Holiday Schedule

Are you looking for a specific court?

The judicial branch of New Mexico consists of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, 34 districts courts and 46 magistrate courts in 13 judicial districts, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, 33 county probate courts, and 81 municipal courts serving the people of the state.

You are now leaving First Judicial District.

By clicking 'Continue' you will be redirected to

What’s at stake in Mexico's judicial system under sweeping overhaul pushed by the president

Mexico’s governing party says judges in the current court system are corrupt, and it wants to push through a unusual proposal to make the country’s entire judicial branch — some 7,000 judges —stand for election

MEXICO CITY -- Mexico’s governing party says judges in the current court system are corrupt, and it wants to push through an extreme proposal to make the country’s entire judicial branch — some 7,000 judges — stand for election.

While some countries like Switzerland and the United States elect some judges indirectly or at the local level, outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador wants citizens to vote on every single judge, appeals court member and justice all the way up to the Supreme Court. The president has clashed repeatedly with judges throughout his six-year term, which ends Sept. 30.

In its present form, the overhaul has drawn criticism domestically and from abroad and leaves a lot of questions to be answered.

Here is a look at some of the biggest issues at stake.

People would only need a law degree, decent grades, five years of undefined “judicial area experience” and a letter of recommendation from anyone to run for some judgeships. The candidates’ applications would be winnowed down by a committee of experts, and the names of the finalists would then be drawn from a hat, in some cases. Supreme Court justices would require 10 years' experience, but would also be elected.

But many details remain unclear, including, for example, how many names would be on the ballots. Hundreds, or potentially thousands, of relatively unknown people could be running for these positions.

Would voters research and read the resumes of all these people, or would political parties simply hand out a list of their preferred candidates to supporters?

It is also not clear who would pay for the candidates' election campaigns.

While the proposal sets limits on campaigning and spending, people who are willing to finance a judgeship candidate may well be those who have a vested interest in court cases.

Judges and court secretaries (something like assistant judges) currently work their way up to higher positions by periodic reviews and evaluation committees. There are clearly problems with cronyism and favoritism in the current model, and it isn't very good at punishing corrupt judges. At the highest levels, some are nominated or selected by the legislative or executive branches.

It would create so-called “faceless” judges to hear organized crime cases, to protect their identities and avoid reprisals, threats or pressure against them.

It would create a judicial disciplinary committee that could rule not just on judicial misconduct like bribes, mishandling evidence or improper delays, but also conduct investigations into judges for their legal reasoning.

It would reduce the Supreme Court from 11 justices to nine, and their terms to 12 years from the current 15.

The overhaul has to be approved by the two chambers of Congress. The lower chamber, dominated by the governing party, has already voted in favor by a wide margin . The measure is now headed to the Senate, where it is expected to pass by a razor-thin margin. It must then win approval in 17 of the country’s 32 state legislatures, where the governing party also appears to have sufficient votes.

Once enacted, apart from the cost and time involved in organizing such massive elections, the current judges would all have to be fired and given severance pay. Fired judges could run as candidates. Many of the newly elected judges would be walking into specialized courtrooms and appeals courts that they have never seen or argued cases in before. The learning curve could be long.

The governing party says letting voters decide would make judges more responsive to the popular will and make it easier to punish bad ones.

But in Mexico, the main problem is not that corrupt judges dismiss too many cases, it’s that police and prosecutors are so ill-trained and overwhelmed that over 90% of crimes are never brought to court at all.

In 2009, Bolivia implemented voting for some judgeships, but a lot of voters turned in blank ballots and the process has been frozen for the time being.

Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

Popular Reads

Canadian opposition party ends support agreement with Prime Minister Trudeau's Liberals

• Sep 4, 9:23 PM

A Māori king who urged racial unity in New Zealand is laid to rest and a new queen rises

• Sep 5, 12:46 AM

Rape trial to hear of ordeal of drugging, abuse

• Sep 5, 3:16 AM

Italy approves new rules to put beach concessions up for bidding by 2027

• Sep 5, 4:54 AM

Honduras' president is asked to resign after corruption scandal she says is a plot to oust her

• Sep 4, 7:53 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

Workers of the Federal Judicial Branch block the Maya Train building in Merida

On the morning of Wednesday, September 4, workers of the Federal Judicial Branch (PJF) blocked the entrances to the administrative building of the Maya Train, as part of the protests against the reform to the Judicial Branch promoted by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The Judicial Branch workers arrived early, set up on the road to Progreso and moments later positioned themselves at the entrances to the administrative building of the Maya Train located near the exit to that port.

The Maya Train workers were not able to enter and those who were there left, however inside the building there were members of the National Guard who remained to guard the facilities.

The activities will be intensified during the week and on Friday, September 6th, a new march is expected on Paseo de Montejo, so protesters invited citizens to join the movement.

TYT Newsroom

Yucatan Times

Progreso chamber of commerce reported an economic spill of 600 million pesos, mexican paralympic athlete juan pablo cervantes wins gold medal.

You may also like

Mexican paralympic athlete arnulfo castorena wins gold medal at paris 2024, a contentious bill to make all judges run for election is almost a reality..., humans generate 57 million tons of plastic pollution every year, health authorities begin the campaign against the papillomavirus; it will end on december 18, leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Our Company

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consect etur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis.

• 01 Central Park, US, New York City
• Phone: (012) 345 6789
• Email: [email protected]
• Support: [email protected]

About Links

• Advertise With Us
• Media Relations
• Corporate Information
• Apps & Products

Useful Links

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Closed Captioning Policy
• Accessibility Statement
• Personal Information
• Data Tracking
• Register New Account

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept

Case No. 23-1775

In re the marriage of dow.

Joshua Eugene Dow, Petitioner-Appellant

Ashley Laine Dow, n/k/a Ashley Laine Herzberg, Respondent-Appellee

Attorney for Appellant

Krisanne C. Weimer

Attorney for Appellee

Kyle E. Focht

Court of Appeals

Court of appeals opinion, opinion number:, date published:.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Margaret Reyes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (9 pages)

            Joshua Dow appeals the district court’s order modifying the joint-physical-care provision of the parties’ dissolution decree to place their children in Ashley Herzberg’s physical care.  He argues that modification is not in the children’s best interests and that no substantial change in circumstances has occurred.   OPINION HOLDS: Giving the district court’s factual findings the deference they deserve, we agree that there has been a substantial change in circumstances not contemplated at the time of the decree and that placing the children in Herzberg’s physical care is in the children’s best interests.  And we deny Dow’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, article iii, judicial branch.

Signing Details

Signed in convention September 17, 1787. Ratified June 21, 1788. A portion of Article III, Section 2, was changed by the 11th Amendment

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Interpretations & Debate

Read interpretations of article iii, section 1.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Read Interpretations of Article III, Section 2

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Read Interpretations of Article III, Section 3

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

• Manage Account
• Best in DFW
• Life & Loss In Dallas
• Things to Do
• Public Notices
• Help Center

AMLO’s reforms will gut the judicial branch in Mexico

The independence of justice is at risk with the proposed changes..

1:30 AM on Sep 3, 2024 CDT

In 1993, the film Boxing Helen a premiered, telling the story of a surgeon obsessed with a beautiful woman. To possess her completely, he amputates all her limbs, reducing her to total dependency. As abhorrent as the story is, it serves as a perfect metaphor for the judicial reform pushed by the Mexican government under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The goal is to fully subdue the judiciary.

The judiciary, which can protect the nation from unconstitutional laws and rulings, is the target of these reforms. In a parallel to the movie, the intention is to amputate an entire constitutional branch, one with the same political and legal weight as the other two. The reform seeks to have judges elected by popular vote, threatening the balance of powers (Mexican judges are named through a judiciary council). Just because the executive and legislative branches are “representative” through popular vote does not mean that the judiciary isn’t.

The judiciary represents the people, especially minorities and the vulnerable, and it does so through the Constitution of Mexico — not only today’s amendments but all those that came before, articles that have been created and added to protect our most cherished rights and freedoms in Mexico.

This assault on democracy and the division of powers, which aims to box in the judiciary to be used at the behest of the other branches, will be like in the film, attacking from below, from the sides, and above.

Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about.

By signing up you agree to our  Terms of Service  and  Privacy Policy

This attack has already started with accusations of corruption, for which not a single piece of evidence exists, and claims of privileges and nepotism. Supporters of these changes only repeat the narrative but often can’t even name the three branches of government, let alone explain the judiciary’s role in Mexico or the purpose of the amparo , a constitutional tool that protects individual rights when the state violates them.

The reform seeks to eliminate the amparo . With that protection gone, laws could be enacted even if they contradict the constitution (for example, new sky-high taxes or expropriations and seizures of private property in the name of “social justice”).

This reform will create a disciplinary tribunal with sweeping powers, essentially forming a fourth branch of government, which will neutralize and silence the judiciary by reviewing the responsibility of judges and the precedents they set. In this way, good judges who adhere to the constitution could be eliminated, and the rest will be discouraged, ensuring that judges can be subdued by fear. This strikes a blow to judicial independence.

This reform would give other branches of government the authority to dismiss and criminally prosecute judges, based on ambiguous concepts such as nepotism (which doesn’t apply to the executive or legislative branches) or “public interest” (which is not clearly defined in the law), or for covering up alleged crimes, and with no option for appeal.

To better explain the impact, let’s take a recent case. Four mothers and a father from an Indigenous community in Yucatán opposed the construction of the Maya Train, a major infrastructure project promoted by the López Obrador government, due to the failure to deliver on a promised crossing to safely transport their children to school. Immediately, investigations were opened against them for a federal crime related to disrupting transportation routes, and they were forced not only to apologize but also to pledge not to protest in that way again.

A Mexican law on social development states that infrastructure projects are of public interest, but the Constitution also states that Indigenous communities are entities of public interest. This is a conflict between a legal norm and the constitution.

For a federal judge, the supremacy of the constitution would have been clear, and the case would have been resolved inevitably in favor of the Indigenous community, completely opposite to how the case was actually resolved.

However, the disciplinary tribunal could have another interpretation. This highlights the extreme danger of creating this fourth power and the drive to box in the Federal Judiciary.

Don’t be misled: the judiciary in Mexico defends the people through the constitution. The president’s proposed reforms put both at risk.

Beatriz Moguel Ancheyta is a federal judge at the 18th Circuit Appellate Tribunal in the state of Morelos, Mexico.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here . If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at [email protected]

Beatriz Moguel Ancheyta

Ch.8 The Judicial Branch: B Layer Assignment

Students also studied

What’s at stake in Mexico's judicial system under sweeping overhaul pushed by the president

UNC considers six options, including two off-campus sites, for Smith Center replacement

No. 24 nc state looking to make mark against red-hot qb nico iamaleava, 14th-ranked vols, pro picks: patrick mahomes and the chiefs will begin three-peat quest with a win over the ravens, small group dominates acc's broadcast tv appearances. should money follow, unc, harrell look to turn negatives into positives against charlotte.

WRAL Late News

WRAL WeatherCenter Forecast

Evening Pick 3 Pick 4 and Cash 5

Powerball Drawing

4 killed, 9 injured in Georgia high school shooting